“Amid all the excitement over the Devin Nunes #TheMemo, it is important to remember that it is a partisan summary of FISA warrant applications that we the People have not been allowed to see. And in determining whether you trust Nunes’s summary, it might be relevant that it inaccurately summarizes something that is public record: James Comey’s testimony in 2017 regarding whether the allegations in the memo had been verified.”

“Nunes claims that James Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.” The claim is not that a particular portion of the dossier is salacious and unverified. The claim is that Comey testified that the dossier (“it”) is salacious and unverified.”

“And it’s not true. That’s not James Comey’s testimony.”

When Comey testified, he was asked whether the FBI had confirmed any criminal allegations in the dossier. Comey did not say no. He said instead to Senator Burr, “Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that’s a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation.”

Red State points out that, while Comey did say that certain information in the Steele dossier was “salacious and unverified,” he didn’t say that the entire dossier was salacious and unverified. Comey actually said that parts of the dossier have been corroborated.

“Again, the phrase “unverified and salacious parts” is clearly a reference to the peeing on the bed allegation, and perhaps a related mention of prostitutes. But “unverified and salacious parts” is language that pointedly does not rule out the concept that there were verified and non-salacious parts as well. Indeed, the pee-on-the-bed story was hardly the only allegation in the Steele dossier. When you put this together with the fact that Comey flat-out refused to answer whether any parts of the dossier had been verified, it’s clear that the testimony is not what #TheMemo claims it is.”

Red State notes that the Nunes memo purposefully obscures what specific parts of the dossier were used and whether those parts had been verified.

“Remember: Nunes is someone who already showed himself to be of questionable credibility when it came to defending Trump’s claim that Obama wiretapped him. Now he’s misrepresenting public testimony that anyone can read. Yet we’re supposed to believe his summary of a still-classified FISA warrant based on these broad-brush smears?”

“Nope. No sale. I said before that it’s a terrible hashtag, but #ReleaseTheDocumentation — specifically the FISA application. If you don’t do that, I have no interest.”